RESUMEN
Livestock are important reservoirs for many zoonotic diseases, however the effects of livestock on human and environmental health extend well beyond direct disease transmission. In this retrospective ecological cohort study we use pre-existing data and the parametric g-formula, which imputes potential outcomes to quantify mediation, to estimate three hypothesized mechanisms by which livestock can influence human African trypanosomiasis (HAT) risk: the reservoir effect, where infected cattle and pigs are a source of infection to humans; the zooprophylactic effect, where preference for livestock hosts exhibited by the tsetse fly vector of HAT means that their presence protects humans from infection; and the environmental change effect, where livestock keeping activities modify the environment in such a way that habitat suitability for tsetse flies, and in turn human infection risk, is reduced. We conducted this study in four high burden countries: at the point level in Uganda, Malawi, and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and at the county level in South Sudan. Our results indicate cattle and pigs play a reservoir role for the rhodesiense form (rHAT) in Uganda (rate ratio (RR) 1.68, 95% CI 0.84, 2.82 for cattle; RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.18, 3.05 for pigs), however zooprophylaxis outweighs this effect for rHAT in Malawi (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68, 1.00 for cattle, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21, 0.69 for pigs). For the gambiense form (gHAT) we found evidence that pigs may be a competent reservoir (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.92, 1.72 in Uganda; RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11, 1.42 in DRC). Statistical significance was reached for rHAT in Malawi (pigs and cattle) and Uganda (pigs only) and for gHAT in DRC (pigs and cattle). We did not find compelling evidence of an environmental change effect (all effect sizes close to 1).
RESUMEN
Domestic and wild animals are important reservoirs of the rhodesiense form of human African trypanosomiasis (rHAT), however quantification of this effect offers utility for deploying non-medical control activities, and anticipating their success when wildlife are excluded. Further, the uncertain role of animal reservoirs-particularly pigs-threatens elimination of transmission (EOT) targets set for the gambiense form (gHAT). Using a new time series of high-resolution cattle and pig density maps, HAT surveillance data collated by the WHO Atlas of HAT, and methods drawn from causal inference and spatial epidemiology, we conducted a retrospective ecological cohort study in Uganda, Malawi, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and South Sudan to estimate the effect of cattle and pig density on HAT risk. For rHAT, we found a positive effect for cattle (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.90, 2.99) and pigs (RR 2.07, 95% CI 1.15, 2.75) in Uganda, and a negative effect for cattle (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.71, 1.10) and pigs (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23, 0.67) in Malawi. For gHAT we found a negative effect for cattle in Uganda (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.50, 1.77) and South Sudan (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.54, 0.77) but a positive effect in DRC (1.17, 95% CI 1.04, 1.32). For pigs, we found a positive gHAT effect in both Uganda (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.87, 3.94) and DRC (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.10, 1.37), and a negative association in South Sudan (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50, 0.98). These effects did not reach significance for the cattle-rHAT effect in Uganda or Malawi, or the cattle-gHAT and pig-gHAT effects in Uganda. While ecological bias may drive the findings in South Sudan, estimated E-values and simulation studies suggest unmeasured confounding and underreporting are unlikely to explain our findings in Malawi, Uganda, and DRC. Our results suggest cattle and pigs may be important reservoirs of rHAT in Uganda but not Malawi, and that pigs-and possibly cattle-may be gHAT reservoirs.